Two common mistakes made today when hiring executives
It has become common knowledge that the hiring landscape has changed since the recession.
More streamlined company structures are now in place where
less people are doing more work, and companies are now much more reactive to weekly market conditions rather than operating with a proactive mentality.
The bulk of the companies that make strategic investments into their business are now typically small to midsize companies who have great confidence in their exceptional products or their unique service offerings.
It is remarkable at how many large established companies are operating with leadership voids in key strategic positions because of a hesitation to bring on more salary.
They will often draw out the hiring process in an overly cautions manner while their business ends up suffering.
The two biggest executive hiring mistakes that I notice that companies are making at this time are the following:
1. Delays in the Interview Process.
Delays between candidate interviews seems to be at an all-time high.
It is important to not commit to being a stakeholder on any executive search assignment unless it is clear that you can clear your schedule to meet candidates and provide timely feedback.
Failing to commit to the process can cost your organization top candidates. The opportunity cost of each executive vacancy is huge, and the best candidates will not wait for you and your company to get your act together.
The inability to be prepared and committed to make timely decisions is a turn-off for good candidates and it suggests that a slow response is the accepted culture of the company.
Good executives are goal oriented and unnecessary hurdles, fence-sitting decision makers and project red-tape are usually red flags for good candidates.
2. Interviews creating poor images of the company.
Companies also need to be as transparent as possible about a position and the company while also acting and engaging throughout the hiring process.
Companies will sometimes adopt interrogation style interview practices or exaggerate the corporate position or situation.
These methods are more likely to dissuade good candidates because of a perceived lack of culture fit or candidates can be insulted by blatant corporate propaganda that may or may not be reality.
It seems that some companies feel that since they do hire often, that candidates will feel privileged to be interviewing for the company’s position.
Never assume that top executive candidates do not have other career options.
It is important to remember that they are evaluating you and your organization as much as you are evaluating them.
Be an enthusiastic interviewer and describe the entire picture.
Superior candidates will be attracted to your narrative and feel a sense of support and enthusiasm from prospective new employers.
I am blown away when a candidate tells me about panel interviews that were negative in nature, had an combative or trap question approach, or sometimes I will hear from female candidates that they felt there was way too much testosterone in the room during their panel interview.
Creating difficult interview environments to cull candidates who may or may not be corporate “fits” or using questioning geared to catch inconsistencies rather than explore depth are more likely to disinterest good candidates who will pull themselves out of the process.
In addition to losing the interest of good candidates, the candidate is also likely to possess a different attitude about your company moving forward.
Farewell,
Mike